Welcome

Thank you for visiting our new forum! To start posting again please follow the link below to create a new password. First time forum users please follow the link to register. CFI thanks you for continuing the discussion on evidence-based thinking and humanist values.

Renew Your Account

Thank you for using our forums. We have migrated all user accounts from our previous forum, but all passwords need to be reset.

Enter your email address and we'll send you a link you can use to pick a new password.

Already have an account?

Want to join the discussion?

Follow the link below to start posting on the forums.

Football, being a real man, soldier-ing

CFI Forum Rules

The CFI Forum is operated by the Center for Inquiry, a nonprofit educational and advocacy organization. The Forum supports the interests of CFI by creating an online community of supporters and interested inquirers into CFI’s areas of concern, which can be generally described as advancing the enlightenment project, fostering an evidence-based, scientific outlook and humanist values.

CFI FORUM RULES

(Preamble) There are rules to participating on this Forum, and there are volunteer and/or CFI-employed Moderators and Administrators whose task it is to enforce these rules, aid in conversation, and otherwise support Forum functioning, as they see fit. Moderators have the sole authority to make such decisions. Their decisions regarding Forum policy are not open for a vote among Forum members, nor open to protracted debate. Those looking for unmoderated discussions should look to unmoderated forums on Usenet and the Web. In the opinion of CFI and its Forum Moderators, however, the most congenial and fruitful places for internet discussion and inquiry, especially concerning the topics CFI focuses on, are those which are capably moderated.

(1) Moderators’/Administrators’ Roles: Moderators (which includes Administrators in the following) of the CFI Forum have the responsibility to enforce the Forum rules listed here. They are also empowered to act so as to improve the general well being of the Forum and its community. Therefore, be aware that Moderators are allowed to take all necessary and appropriate actions, up to and including the editing or deleting of problem posts and the banning of problem members. Moderators answer for their official actions to their fellow Moderators and to staff at CFI. Generally speaking, Moderators will try to provide fair warning about behavior that might require their action, either on the Forum or through email or private message. At all times, failure to respond to and heed warnings from Moderators is grounds for banning from the Forum.

Moderators will use blue lettering to distinguish official posts (warnings, etc.) they make on the Forum from posts which are made in their unofficial capacity as fellow members.

Note that Moderators may not be aware of all activity occurring on the Forum. If there is something you feel needs Moderator attention, please send a concise Private Message or email including a description of the issue and the URL of the associated post or thread. Moderator decisions on any topic may be delayed, perhaps by several days.

(2) Members’ Roles: The CFI Forum is open to anyone willing to abide by the Forum Rules. We welcome reasoned discussion, debate and disagreement, so long as it is in an objective spirit of inquiry and does not become disruptive as described below in the sections on problem threads, posts and members.

(3) Problem threads and posts are subject to editing, deletion, closure, or being locked for further discussion. The decision to leave any thread open and available is at the discretion of Moderators, in their capacity as responsible stewards of Forum functioning. Members re-starting conversations in closed or locked threads are subject to warning and/or termination, for being “problem members”. Some examples of problem threads and posts follow in (a)-(h):

(a) Spam is not allowed on the CFI Forum and will be deleted immediately. New members should avoid posting promotional links, as they will likely be viewed as spam.

(b) Duplicate or multiple posts on the same topic are subject to deletion. Please attempt to keep threads on topic, and attempt to keep topics in active threads rather than beginning new ones. Moderators will merge threads with similar topics and split threads that stray.

(c) Publishing material under copyright is only allowed as per “Fair Use” rules. Members should not copy entire articles under copyright to the forum, but instead quote a few sentences and provide a link.

(d) Publishing private messages, emails or other correspondence without permission from the authors is not allowed.

(e) “Trolling” is not allowed. This includes posting derogatory or inflammatory messages with the intent to bait an overheated response, as well as behavior that in the Moderators’ judgement is gratuitously argumentative, combative, or inflammatory with the apparent intent to prolong debate for its own sake rather than promote, defend, or critique a particular idea or point of view.

(f) Threads and posts are not allowed that in the opinion of Moderators are impolite, vulgar, nasty, uncivil, or otherwise disruptive to the good functioning of the either the Forum or to CFI’s mission. Free inquiry is only possible if we maintain civility. Abuse of forum members will not be permitted. In particular, abuse of Moderators for performing their responsibilities will not be permitted. What constitutes abuse will be determined by Moderators on a case-by-case basis, however in general it amounts to any racist, sexist, homo-sexist, threatening, harassing, or other personally offensive, vulgar or derogatory comments. Abuse would include so-called hate speech and fighting words.

Generally speaking, inflammatory, hyperbolic or overly emotive rhetoric is the sign of a troll and should be avoided on the CFI Forum. This community exists, first and foremost, to foster inquiry. Inquiry does not flourish in an atmosphere of heated rhetoric, mutual vilification or recrimination. Disagreements should be kept, as much as possible, to the issues at hand and not become overly personalized. To take but one example, pointing out a person’s lack of scientific qualifications when discussing scientific issues is on-point, but referring to someone’s political beliefs is not. Since they risk degenerating into flame wars, abusive forum threads or posts are subject to immediate editing or deletion.

(g) Threads and posts that are disruptive to the flow of conversation by being off-topic, or which in the opinions of Moderators were written to drive up a post-count or otherwise not relevant to the mission of CFI and its Forum are not allowed. They are subject to locking, editing or deletion.

(h) Threads that consist of repetitive posting of the same comments, information, or links without meaningful development or responsive discussion will be considered a form of spamming or trolling and may be locked or deleted at the Moderators’ discretion.

(4) Problem members are subject to banning or deletion. The decision to allow any member to post is entirely at the discretion of Forum Moderators, in their capacity as responsible stewards of Forum functioning. What constitutes a problem member is up to Moderator discretion. Some examples of problem members follow in (a)-(e):

(a) Members who regularly engage in problem posting.

(b) Members who regularly engage in abusive, nasty or disruptive behavior; or who display a pattern of hostile, antagonistic and uncooperative behavior with Moderators and/or membership.

(c) Members who engage in large-scale or frequent deletion of prior posts without due cause. Deleting prior posts disrupts the flow of threads, and makes it difficult or impossible to follow past discussions. Members wishing to remove more than a very small number of posts, or posts more than a few days old, should discuss this with Moderators by email or Private Message before doing so. Reasonable cases will be accommodated. While members are allowed infrequent deletion of problem posts, large-scale deletions without good cause may lead to warning or banning, at the discretion of Forum Moderators.

(d) Members who use more than one username on the Forum. Members are allowed a single username. “Sock puppets” (multiple usernames hiding a single person) are not allowed and will be banned or deleted. Members engaging in such behavior will be considered problem members and are themselves subject to warning or banning.

(e) Members who have been banned or deleted from the Forum are not allowed to re-register under different usernames. Such re-registry may result in immediate deletion of the new account, and deletion of all associated new posts.

(5) In the opinion of CFI and for the purposes of this Forum, “humanism” is to be interpreted broadly. Anyone self-identifying as a humanist should be so considered. Discussions as to which Forum members are humanists is discouraged, and continued denigration and harassment of self-described humanist Forum members in that light is considered disruptive to CFI’s mission and to that of CFI’s Forum.

(6) Users may express their disagreements with the decisions or actions of Moderators, but disagreements, criticisms and the like may be discussed in the Issues & Complaints Forum ONLY. (You must read the instructions at the top of that Forum before making complaints there). Any such discussions not taking place within the I & C Forum are considered off-topic, and as such are subject to moving, locking or deletion, at the discretion of Moderators.

(7) These Forum Rules are subject to revision and updating at any time, as appropriate.

Oneguy, You should worship me as a “real man”, if you think depositing semen into a large number of willing women by your age or younger, supports that title. (and that was before the days when you could just get on your smartphone and find the night’s hookup by swiping left, or however that goes)

But I get it. Your testosterone is pretty much what you have that makes you feel special.

Speaking from personal experience, the “manly men” is not the thing that women are after in this day and age. It’s more about shared interests and compatibility. Most of the guys I have seen that act the way you envision don’t have long lasting or fulfilling relationships. I think I man is someone who is confident but knows his limits and when to push and when to accept. He is capable and at least tries before saying he can’t hack it. Most of all, he’s not trying to prove something to everyone else. Of course being in touch with his emotions is valuable too, and yes men are more than capable of that.

I think Guy has a flawed view of man based on the modern definition of manliness. Our ancient ancestors weren’t like that.

Speaking from personal experience, the “manly men” is not the thing that women are after in this day and age. It’s more about shared interests and compatibility. Most of the guys I have seen that act the way you envision don’t have long lasting or fulfilling relationships. I think I man is someone who is confident but knows his limits and when to push and when to accept. He is capable and at least tries before saying he can’t hack it. Most of all, he’s not trying to prove something to everyone else. Of course being in touch with his emotions is valuable too, and yes men are more than capable of that.

Aren’t you gay? (No offense).

In my experience as a 30-something guy who has been around the world all young women are turned on by men who are confident, strong, and charming. They might want to be friends with guys that aren’t those things but they aren’t sexually attracted to them.

Of course “compatibility” is important but that is somewhat overrated as most men and women are fairly compatible to begin with. I like to focus on “chemistry” instead.

Generally agree with you on confidence but here’s the thing: confidence is something you either have or you don’t. Being confident and failing sometimes is still far better than lacking confidence.

I think Guy has a flawed view of man based on the modern definition of manliness. Our ancient ancestors weren’t like that.

If anything ancient men were a more extreme version of my description.

Oneguy, You should worship me as a “real man”, if you think depositing semen into a large number of willing women by your age or younger, supports that title. (and that was before the days when you could just get on your smartphone and find the night’s hookup by swiping left, or however that goes)

But no family, right?(And the women on dating apps are usually ugly and crazier than average . I’m spoken for anyway).

But I get it. Your testosterone is pretty much what you have that makes you feel special.

That Guy if you’re only interested in denigrating, then your statements become worthless word plays divorced from reality and any interest in seeking understanding. All your energy seems focused on reinforcing your own certitude, rather than learning anything new. Easy to do when you reside within your own self-certain bubble.

I’d actually had something slightly loftier in mind with this thread, but when it’s a pissing contest it’s tough to get out of the gutter.

The real key I’d intended to work this conversation towards was PLURALISM – although now that I’ve taken the trouble to look it up, it turns our somewhat different from what I was taught way back. I’ve always thought Pluralism was about diverse groups of people living within society that respects each others’ strengths and weakness, we need the warrior as much as the worker, etc, etc. The idilic American melting pot and democratic process when people actually got involved and before we got too crowded and scared and hypnotized into becoming cogs in a machine.

Pluralism is the theory that a multitude of groups, not the people as a whole, govern the United States. These organizations, which include among others unions, trade and professional associations, environmentalists, civil rights activists, business and financial lobbies, and formal and informal coalitions of like-minded citizens, influence the making and administration of laws and policy. Since the participants in this process constitute only a tiny fraction of the populace, the public acts mainly as bystanders.
Unfortunately a part of me can’t help but agree that most voters seem too dumb and disinterested for the duty of voting competently & responsibility – but that gets us into a different can of worms, where all the solutions seem to promise even worse problems than the original problem.

Both pluralism as social diversity and this theory probably only work in small doses. As for voters being too dumb to vote competently………well that’s always been a big problem democracy hasn’t it — especially in an extremely diverse democracy like the USA.

So I guess it’s the shallow adulation of our military to the exclusion of everything else that has me irritated; tree hugger belong in Hell – warriors and football players and consumerism makes Merica Great, that sort of nonsense.

The over the top worship of the military since 2001 has been absurd, though it’s nowhere near as bad as it was 10 years ago. Most veterans (including myself) chalked it up to civilians just saying what they thought we wanted to hear and didn’t hold it against them. The military is pretty far removed from most Americans and people felt good about making some little effort to acknowledge there were two wars going on, but it quickly turned into a charade and now it’s just lame. Society has largely moved on from the GWOT and rightly so.

Sports is entertainment for a lot of people and there’s no harm in that. Ratings have been steadily declining over the past few years anyway.

America has always been more about brawn than brain but this stuff plays a small role in what most people see as important. I’d say financial freedom and personal freedom are probably what most Americans would place at the top.

So how would you suggest that civilians react to veterans? Pretend they didn’t do anything special? I can do that. Just so we don’t go to the other end of the spectrum e.g., full Viet Nam era spitting on them.

I do like football. Tho I think that the ones who get brain damage from it are undercompensated.

I have seen all kinds of relationships and it’s not the manly men that last. Also confidence is a skill/trait that anyone can develop. It’s not a “you have it or not”, but it being a turn on is across all groups.

So how would you suggest that civilians react to veterans? Pretend they didn’t do anything special? I can do that. Just so we don’t go to the other end of the spectrum e.g., full Viet Nam era spitting on them.

If you don’t know any personally but want to mention something, a “welcome home” is good enough.

I have seen all kinds of relationships and it’s not the manly men that last. Also confidence is a skill/trait that anyone can develop. It’s not a “you have it or not”, but it being a turn on is across all groups.

I bet you have Guy. Bet it would be a blast spending an evening at the bar hearing all about it.

But of course, we know in the real world there are all sorts of women. Even including the hardened bike’s mama, that like it a little rough and who would just as soon kick the shit out of a pansy-assed nice guy, as talk to his worthless arse.

They say it takes all types to make the world go around.

As for the soldier I like what you said:

If you don’t know any personally but want to mention something, a “welcome home” is good enough.

You know that’s true. It’s not fair to make grunts the scapegoat for chickenhawk politicians, whom them kids really wished they could be spitting at.

Guy, you won’t let yourself believe that I can have the deepest respect for the effort, the disciple, the sacrifice, of soldiers.

Because it pisses you off that at the same time I must acknowledge and be aware that those soldiers were pawns, used and abused with contempt by their leaders. That the deed they were forced to do, have made our world and nation way more damaged that there was any need for.

Meaning I can respect and love the soldier, but don’t tell me what he was forced to participate in has won us any freedom – BULL SHIT !!! quite the opposite ! – it is rapidly turning our world into a even worse hell hole than nature is already setting up for us.

At least if we as a nation and people were reality based rationalists – we could face our real enemy, a planet that will be waging its own war upon humanity (AGW) – instead we’ve handed our government over to utter insane idiots like Trump and all them …………………… ………………………………………..